F1 Safety & Driver Protection

[OO7]

I was just wondering why the technical regulations in F1 and other motor sport categories for that matter, stipulate that the drivers legs must be positioned behind the front wheel centreline. Is this simply hold over, an anachronism of when cars were designed without an adequate survival cell to protect the driver?

[turbof1]

I was just wondering why the technical regulations in F1 and other motor sport categories for that matter, stipulate that the drivers legs must be positioned behind the front wheel centreline. Is this simply hold over, an anachronism of when cars were designed without an adequate survival cell to protect the driver?

I think it has to do with the front crash structure. The front crash structure, the nose cone, start at the front wheel centreline, and deaccelerates the car in front of the legs. If the legs would end inside the crash structure, the legs would still endure force that the crash structure otherwise could have deaccelerated.

[OO7]

I was just wondering why the technical regulations in F1 and other motor sport categories for that matter, stipulate that the drivers legs must be positioned behind the front wheel centreline. Is this simply hold over, an anachronism of when cars were designed without an adequate survival cell to protect the driver?

I think it has to do with the front crash structure. The front crash structure, the nose cone, start at the front wheel centreline, and deaccelerates the car in front of the legs. If the legs would end inside the crash structure, the legs would still endure force that the crash structure otherwise could have deaccelerated.

Couldn't the crash structure/bulkhead be defined relative to the monocoque and the drivers feet mandated to be a minimum distance from that bulkhead?
If we were to move the front wheels of the W06 300mm rearwards, despite the poor handling and the drivers feet overhanging the front wheel centreline, the car would still maintain the same head-on collision protection.

[turbof1]

I was just wondering why the technical regulations in F1 and other motor sport categories for that matter, stipulate that the drivers legs must be positioned behind the front wheel centreline. Is this simply hold over, an anachronism of when cars were designed without an adequate survival cell to protect the driver?

I think it has to do with the front crash structure. The front crash structure, the nose cone, start at the front wheel centreline, and deaccelerates the car in front of the legs. If the legs would end inside the crash structure, the legs would still endure force that the crash structure otherwise could have deaccelerated.

Couldn't the crash structure/bulkhead be defined relative to the monocoque and the drivers feet mandated to be a minimum distance from that bulkhead?
If we were to move the front wheels of the W06 300mm rearwards, despite the poor handling and the drivers feet overhanging the front wheel centreline, the car would still maintain the same head-on collision protection.

Well, this is above my head to have a clear vision on, but I guess this is a case of "why bother changing it". The current situation is reasonably safe, and the front wheel centre line is one of the best reference points to build technical and safety regulations upon.

Also, regardless of that it could infact be illegal to move it back that much, the car would probably have more structure indeed to deaccelerate. However, from the bulkhead on your are going into the survival cell, and that is a very stiff, rigid and strong structure. It's imperative all parts of the human body are being placed into that structure. You also have to note that legs are around 1000mm long; remove 300mm and they might not fit anymore.

Finally, I do believe having suspension parts around the legs instead of in front of, poses a bigger risk to the driver. Parts could cut their way into the monocoque and harm the driver.

Again, I'm not an expert and I do lag a clear vision on the matter, but can see changing the current setup would pose risks.

[OO7]

Yes, I considered that the suspension puncturing the monocoque in the event of a side impact could be a problem. This is still theoretically possible with contemporary designs however.
I think as you mentioned it seemed a sensible place of reference at the time and there hasn't been any need to change it.

[Facts Only]

I dont know all of the history (very little of it in fact) but I'm sure it was mandated by the MSA in the early 90's in the U.K.

If you see a car built before that time now its really obvious, its just looks like a horrendous injury waiting to happen. On spaceframe cars the load bearing structure generally ends at the front suspension pickups so the drivers feet seem to just bee sticking out into flimsy bodywork and a chassis designed just to hang a wing. On early monocoques (particularly alumnium ones) it looks evern worse, the hole in the moncoque where the drivers legs pokes through looks like a giulotine (spelling?) ready slice off a drivers feet.

Its probably not really relevant to F1 now, more of a general safe construction rule that applies accross the board.

Below is a picture of a Formual Jedi (and some happy looking men), seriously fast single seaters (particularly in Hillclimbs) the chassis was homlogated not long before the change and I think demonstrate quite well why the rule is a good one. What is actually pretecting the drivers feet there? Not alot really, i would rather my feet were behind the main load bearing points for the steering rack and suspension.

[OO7]

Thanks Facts Only. The points you made about the protection from the load bearing component are valid. I think perhaps the rule was a more simple way of protecting the drivers feet, rather than having to add considerable protection ahead of the centreline.
According to the following site, from 1988 the drivers feet had to be behind the front wheel centreline in F1. http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/safety.html